Subscribe To Religious Liberty, The First Liberty

Sunday, November 18, 2012

Churches and Tax Exemption

Last week I
mentioned secularist attempts to target the tax exempt status of churches after
the election.On Sunday, November 12,
Reuters published a story by Mary Wisniewski titled “Election Blurring of
Church, State Separation Draws Complaints.”The article details letters of complaint to the IRS from the groups
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and the Freedom from
Religion Foundation (FFRF).Since this
time, the FFRF has filed suit, according to an article on their website, against
the IRS for allegedly violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment
because they have not investigated churches who “electioneer” in violation of the
tax code pertaining to 501(c)(3) organizations.While the letters of complaint and the law suit target conservative
elements of the Catholic Bishops and the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association,
Ms. Wisniewski points out in her article that 40% of Black Protestants told the
Pew Research Center that they had heard pro Obama messages from their clergy,
so this is a bipartisan issue.

These suits
bring up an interesting question.Why
should the tax exempt status of churches prevent them from speaking out on
political issues?Section 501(c)(3) of
the tax code was developed to make it easier for charitable organizations to
operate by removing tax burdens from them.The idea was that these organizations save the tax payers money by
providing services for the needy that the government would otherwise be required
to perform.

So why should a tax exempt status based on economic and fiscal
efficiencies be used to limit an organization’s right to free speech? The tax code allows other forms of non-profits
much greater latitude.Section 501(c)(4)
and 501(c)(5) provides tax exempt status for Civic Leagues and Labor Unions,
both of which have unlimited ability to electioneer.As it turns out, the original law did not
restrict 501(c)(3) organizations from speaking on political issues.The law changed in 1954 when Senator Lyndon
Johnson had the code amended to exclude these organizations from participating in
or intervening in political campaigns.The
amendment targeted 2 non-profit organizations which opposed Johnson’s
re-election bid to the Senate.While the
amendment was originally aimed Johnson’s political opponents instead of at
churches, organizations like FFRF and People for the American Way have
subsequently used the amendment to intimidate churches and silence their voice
in the political arena. The website for
FFRP actually gives guidelines on how to report churches for violating the
Johnson Amendment.

A growing
number of clergy are questioning the IRS regulations through a movement called
Pulpit Freedom Sunday.The organization’s
website, www.speakupmovement.org, summarizes
the goals of the movement as follows.“The
purpose of Pulpit Freedom Sunday is to restore the right of pastors to speak
freely from the pulpit without fear of punishment by the government for doing
what churches do: speak on any number of cultural and societal issues from a
biblical perspective. The purpose of Pulpit Freedom Sunday is not – as some
have intentionally tried to confuse the issue – about whether pastors should or
should not “endorse” candidates.The
issue with which Alliance Defending Freedom is concerned is over who
regulates what may be said from the pulpit.”This last October 7, 1621 churches joined in
the movement, in an effort to provoke a legal review of the law.I highly encourage you to visit the Speak Up
Movement’s website and read the summary of their legal arguments, FAQ and
article entitled “Common Objections to Pulpit Freedom Sunday.”In addition to providing excellent
background, they show how the law as currently configured violates the Establishment
Clause, the Free Speech Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.

If you were
to read most articles or blogs on the tax exempt status of churches, you would
be led to believe that the provisions placed on 501(c)(3) organizations are essential
to the separation of church and state.In reality, the provisions were the result of a blatantly political act of
censorship by a powerful senator that has since become a tool for radical
secularists to silence the voice of the religious in the critical issues of our
time.Indeed, as the secular agenda
presses against moral issues which have traditionally been the domain of the
church such as issues on life and the sanctity of marriage, it is impossible
for churches to take a stand on the issues, without taking a position which is “political.”So the FFRP is right in one aspect.It is time to look at the IRS implementation
of Section 501(c)(3); it is time to strike down the Johnson amendment.

Follow by Email

Blog Archive

About Me

I am a first generation American whose Father came to the US to avoid religious discrimination in his home country of Scotland. I aspire to the values my father taught me: to judge all men by their character instead of their color or their creed, to be steadfast in my convictions and yet caring in my approach to those with whom I disagree. I speak out for religious freedom because I worry that if I do not, my children will suffer the same discrimination my father did in his home country.